Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaina vs Hasan Parvez on 21 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1566
1 CRR-2109-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2109 of 2024
SHAINA AND OTHERS
Versus
HASAN PARVEZ
Appearance:
Ms. Anushka Jain - advocate for the applicants.
Shri Kuldeep Dashora, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is preferred
against the order dated 13.3.204 passed in MJCR No. 211/2022 whereby the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur has dismissed the petition for
maintenance to applicant No.1-wife, Shaina but granted maintenance to
Mohd. Saklen Pathan and Aliraza Pathan, who are minor sons born out of
wedlock between the applicant No.1 and respondent/husband.
2. It is not in dispute that applicant and respondent were married in
2009 according to muslim rituals and applicant No.1 brought Rs. 51,786/- as
Mehar with her.
3. Counsel for applicants submits that learned Family Court has not
appreciated the evidence in right perspective and wrongly dismissed the
application for grant of maintenance to applicant No.1-wife on the ground of
her living in adultery. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1566
2 CRR-2109-2024
passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs.
Smt. Deepika Sharma, 2022 Live Law(Del) 324 submits that only continuous
and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the
rigors of the provision under section 125(4) Cr.P.C.. Mere single Act of
adultery would not deprive the applicant No.1-wife for claiming maintenance
from the husband. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for setting
aside the impugned order and awarding maintenance to the applicant No.1
also.
4. Counsel for respondent submits that from evidence on record, it has
been established that applicant No.1-Shina is living in adultery, therefore,
Family Court was kind enough not to grant maintenance to her as per
provisions of section 125(4) Cr.P.C., for which he has referred the CDR
(Article A/2) filed in evidence with appropriate certificate under section 65-
B of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that learned Family
Court has elaborately appreciated the evidence in right perspective including
the CDR (Articles A/1 and A/2). Evidence has been filed to prove the
aforesaid CDR. One agreement (Ex.D/1) has also been filed wherein it has
been admitted by the applicant No.1 that she will not pick up dispute in
future. On comparison of signatures on this agreement are found similar to
signature on the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, it cannot be
said that this particular agreement does not bear her signature. On the basis
of evidence available on record, learned Family Court has declined to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1566
3 CRR-2109-2024
maintenance to the applicant No.1-wife. In the considered opinion of this
Court, learned Family Court has not committed any irregularity or perversity
warranting revisional jurisdiction.
7. Even otherwise, the scope of revisional Court under Section
397/401 of Cr.P.C. is limited one. On this aspect, the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , is pertinent to quote here as under:-
"The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as
to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed
by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the
section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality,
proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very
foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately
it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised
where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily..................."
8. In light of the above, no case is made out for invoking revisional
jurisdiction. The revision being devoid of substance, fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
MK
